To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

University of Southern California
VOL. LXI, NO. 48
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, NOV. 20,1969
Related
WORKING TO WIN HOUSE DECORATION CONTEST
Members of Alpha Epsilon Pi struggle with beginnings
ted photo, page 2. Photo by Don She
Shearer
Draft lottery bill
passes Senate easily
WASHINGTON (UPI) — The Senate gave final Congressional approval Wednesday to President Nixon’s draft lottery bill.
The measure was rushed to the floor and passed by voice vote after a perfunctory debate. It had already been passed by the House and now will go to Nixon for his signature.
The measure will pave the way for selection of 19-year-olds first, exposing each eligible man to the draft for only one year. At present, a man can be exposed to the draft for as long as six years.
The bill itself changes only one line of the Selective Service Act — repealing a provision that prevented the President from choosing draftees by lot.
Chairman John C. Stennis (D-Miss.), of the Senate Armed Services Committee, promised senators seeking broader draft
DT EDITOR FORMS DUE
Applications are due Friday for spring semester editorship of the Daily Trojan. Forms may be obtained in the journalism office, Student Union 423.
Completed applications will be reviewed by the Journalism Council Nov. 24.
After the council has made its recommendation, President Topping will appoint the editor.
reforms that h i s committee would begin hearings next year on more comprehensive proposals.
Demands by some senators, notably Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), for broader changes in the draft law than simply removing the ban on a lottery, had threatened to block action on any change at all.
Kennedy agreed several days ago not to press for amendments on the floor provided that leaders would give assurance that hearings would be held next year on more extensive draft reform.
Stennis said on the floor Wednesday there would be hearings next year but said he could not make promises that a draft reform bill would pass.
“We cannot make any guarantee, of course, at this time,” he said.
Defense Secretary Melvin Laird has indicated the first lottery will be scheduled sometime early in January.
In the drawing, all 365 days of the year would be put into a bowl and scrambled. If a draftee’s birthday were selected first, he and others born on that day would be the first to be called.
For the first year of the program, all draft eligible men from 19 to 26 would be subject to being called under the lottery.
Beginning in the second year, however, only 19-year-olds and those whose deferments had expired would be vulnerable.
Senate adopts stand on academic freedo:
By BERNARD BECK
After nearly an hour of discussion and the submission of no less than five different resolutions Thursday, the University Senate approved a resolution reaffirming its belief in the principles of academic freedom in light of the dismissal of Angela Davis by the Board of Regents.
The resolution finally aocepted, introduced by John Elliott, professor of economics, was considered by some Senate members as a compromise between a senate faction which sought a strong condemnation of the regents’ action and an opposing faction which preferred a milder endorsement of academic freedom.
The first resolution concerning academic freedom and Angela Davis was introduced by Norma Goodrich, associate professor of French and comparative literature. Her resolution was a brief reaffirmation of the principles of academic freedom.
A resolution by Douglas Cox, associate professor of cinema, was introduced as a substitute for the Goodrich resolution. The Cox resolution considered the Davis dismissal as “a grave violation of academic freedom.” It stated that “the qualifications of a faculty member should be determined by performance in the university and not by a priori judgements based upon political affiliation.” This resolution was turned down by the senate.
A second substitute resolution was introduced and then rejected. This resolution, by Bernard Strehler, professor of biology, said that the regents “were in violation of the spirit of academic freedom . . . and probably -in violation of constitutional guarantees in their dismissal proceedings against Dr. Angela Davis, ... on the basis of her membership in the Communist Party, USA.”
A third substitute resolution for the Goodrich resolution was introduced by Margaret Lieb, professor of microbiology. This resolution generally restated the previous resolutions, and was defeated as well.
After these substitute resolutions were rejected, Mrs. Goodrich withdrew her original resolution.
However, since this would have left the senate without a resolution on the matter, a member reintroduced the Goodrich resolution.
A motion was made to remove from this resolution a specific reference to the Davis case. Members of the senate termed this motion as stupid and gelding.
However, before a vote was taken on this amendment or on the resolution itself, another substitute resolution was introduced.
The text of the resolution,. by Prof. Elliott, which was finally approved by the senate is as follows:
“In light of dismissal proceedings currently in process against a duly appointed acting assistant professor in the Philosophy Department at the University of California at Los Angeles, we the University Senate of the University of Southern California, wish to reaffirm our commitment to established principles and procedures of good academic order as outlined in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and subsequent statements of the American Association of University Professors, namely, (1) the free search for truth and its free exposition in a university demands dedicated, objective, and competent faculty; (2) dismissal of a duly appointed faculty member must be based on adequate cause; (3) adequate cause must be related, directly and substantially, to professional fitness; (4) professional fitness and faculty competence must be determined by performance in the university and not by a priori judgments based on personal beliefs or political or religious affiliation; (5) in keeping with traditional academic policy, appropriate procedures should exist for the judgment of peers in evaluation of the professional performance of faculty members after they have had an ample time to demonstrate their qualifications or lack of qualifications in actual services at a university.
“Consequently, we reaffirm these established principles and procedures of academic freedom and good academic order, express deep and grave concern over departures from them, and respectfully urge the Regents of the University of California to reconsider their recent actions concerning faculty dismissal and to abide by established principles in basing judgments on faculty dismissal solely on demonstrated academic and professional performance, incorporating appropriate procedures for evaluation of performance by professional judgments of the faculty.”
A motion to send the resolution to the chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of California was not acted upon due to the absence of a quorum of Senate members near the end of the meeting.
In other action, a report on departing faculty members was presented by the Faculty Interests and Responsibilities Committee. The report contained the reasons given by 31 of the 67 faculty members who left last semester.
MINNES PUSHES CHANGES
Constitutional review set
By ANDY MILLER Managing editor
Ten recommendations for revision of the ASSC Constitution have been forwarded by Fred Minnes, ASSC president, to an 11-member Constitutional Revision Committee.
The committee, which was appointed by Dr. Topping on Minnes’ nominations, will examine the effectiveness of the ASSC Constitution and propose needed changes.
More than likely, a slightly altered document will be submitted to the student body in a special election before March 1, so that any possible changes will be in effect for the spring student body general election.
In his recommendations, Minnes asked that the position of senior class president be abolished, that a single vice-president replace the existing two vice-presidents, and that the Executive Council be given broader powers.
He also suggested several procedural changes which would complement his recommendations, or clarify portions of the document.
The current ASSC Constitution was ratified in a special election on March 30, 1966. Article XII of the Constitution contains a provision for a mandatory constitutional review.
The committee is headed by Donna Dediemar, Associated Women Students president. Other members are Mrs. Frederick Flam, sophomore; Loyd Kirk, graduate representative; Jay Magnuson, graduate representative; Andy Miller, managing editor of the Daily Trojan; Paul Moore, director of student activities; Dr. Harold Spear, associate professor of management; Dr. Richard Hesse, assistant professor of quantitative business analysis; Dan Smith, CACC executive director; and Norm Reed, administrative assistant to the vice-president of programs.
Mark Savit, vice-president of academic affairs; Sandra Sorenson, vice-president of programs; President Topping and Minnes serve as ex-officio members.
Early next semester, the committee will hold a series of open hearings where students will be
allowed to comment on the constitution.
In the meantime, the committee will study the document, and consider Minnes’ recommendations.
“I believe we now have a suitable constitutional framework from which student government can effectively operate,” Minnes said in his memorandum to the committee.
“However, certain areas seem to be in need of clarification, elaboration or alteration to increase administrative efficiency.
“Bear in mind that these recommendations may not be as specific as they should be when put in final constitutional form and that they should not in any way limit the scope of your investigation.”
Minnes’ recommendations are:
1—Definition of membership in the Associated Students should be consistent with the definitions of who is to pay the $4.50 programming fee and who is eligible to vote.
• 2—Abolish the senior class (Continued on page 3)

University of Southern California
VOL. LXI, NO. 48
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, NOV. 20,1969
Related
WORKING TO WIN HOUSE DECORATION CONTEST
Members of Alpha Epsilon Pi struggle with beginnings
ted photo, page 2. Photo by Don She
Shearer
Draft lottery bill
passes Senate easily
WASHINGTON (UPI) — The Senate gave final Congressional approval Wednesday to President Nixon’s draft lottery bill.
The measure was rushed to the floor and passed by voice vote after a perfunctory debate. It had already been passed by the House and now will go to Nixon for his signature.
The measure will pave the way for selection of 19-year-olds first, exposing each eligible man to the draft for only one year. At present, a man can be exposed to the draft for as long as six years.
The bill itself changes only one line of the Selective Service Act — repealing a provision that prevented the President from choosing draftees by lot.
Chairman John C. Stennis (D-Miss.), of the Senate Armed Services Committee, promised senators seeking broader draft
DT EDITOR FORMS DUE
Applications are due Friday for spring semester editorship of the Daily Trojan. Forms may be obtained in the journalism office, Student Union 423.
Completed applications will be reviewed by the Journalism Council Nov. 24.
After the council has made its recommendation, President Topping will appoint the editor.
reforms that h i s committee would begin hearings next year on more comprehensive proposals.
Demands by some senators, notably Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), for broader changes in the draft law than simply removing the ban on a lottery, had threatened to block action on any change at all.
Kennedy agreed several days ago not to press for amendments on the floor provided that leaders would give assurance that hearings would be held next year on more extensive draft reform.
Stennis said on the floor Wednesday there would be hearings next year but said he could not make promises that a draft reform bill would pass.
“We cannot make any guarantee, of course, at this time,” he said.
Defense Secretary Melvin Laird has indicated the first lottery will be scheduled sometime early in January.
In the drawing, all 365 days of the year would be put into a bowl and scrambled. If a draftee’s birthday were selected first, he and others born on that day would be the first to be called.
For the first year of the program, all draft eligible men from 19 to 26 would be subject to being called under the lottery.
Beginning in the second year, however, only 19-year-olds and those whose deferments had expired would be vulnerable.
Senate adopts stand on academic freedo:
By BERNARD BECK
After nearly an hour of discussion and the submission of no less than five different resolutions Thursday, the University Senate approved a resolution reaffirming its belief in the principles of academic freedom in light of the dismissal of Angela Davis by the Board of Regents.
The resolution finally aocepted, introduced by John Elliott, professor of economics, was considered by some Senate members as a compromise between a senate faction which sought a strong condemnation of the regents’ action and an opposing faction which preferred a milder endorsement of academic freedom.
The first resolution concerning academic freedom and Angela Davis was introduced by Norma Goodrich, associate professor of French and comparative literature. Her resolution was a brief reaffirmation of the principles of academic freedom.
A resolution by Douglas Cox, associate professor of cinema, was introduced as a substitute for the Goodrich resolution. The Cox resolution considered the Davis dismissal as “a grave violation of academic freedom.” It stated that “the qualifications of a faculty member should be determined by performance in the university and not by a priori judgements based upon political affiliation.” This resolution was turned down by the senate.
A second substitute resolution was introduced and then rejected. This resolution, by Bernard Strehler, professor of biology, said that the regents “were in violation of the spirit of academic freedom . . . and probably -in violation of constitutional guarantees in their dismissal proceedings against Dr. Angela Davis, ... on the basis of her membership in the Communist Party, USA.”
A third substitute resolution for the Goodrich resolution was introduced by Margaret Lieb, professor of microbiology. This resolution generally restated the previous resolutions, and was defeated as well.
After these substitute resolutions were rejected, Mrs. Goodrich withdrew her original resolution.
However, since this would have left the senate without a resolution on the matter, a member reintroduced the Goodrich resolution.
A motion was made to remove from this resolution a specific reference to the Davis case. Members of the senate termed this motion as stupid and gelding.
However, before a vote was taken on this amendment or on the resolution itself, another substitute resolution was introduced.
The text of the resolution,. by Prof. Elliott, which was finally approved by the senate is as follows:
“In light of dismissal proceedings currently in process against a duly appointed acting assistant professor in the Philosophy Department at the University of California at Los Angeles, we the University Senate of the University of Southern California, wish to reaffirm our commitment to established principles and procedures of good academic order as outlined in the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure and subsequent statements of the American Association of University Professors, namely, (1) the free search for truth and its free exposition in a university demands dedicated, objective, and competent faculty; (2) dismissal of a duly appointed faculty member must be based on adequate cause; (3) adequate cause must be related, directly and substantially, to professional fitness; (4) professional fitness and faculty competence must be determined by performance in the university and not by a priori judgments based on personal beliefs or political or religious affiliation; (5) in keeping with traditional academic policy, appropriate procedures should exist for the judgment of peers in evaluation of the professional performance of faculty members after they have had an ample time to demonstrate their qualifications or lack of qualifications in actual services at a university.
“Consequently, we reaffirm these established principles and procedures of academic freedom and good academic order, express deep and grave concern over departures from them, and respectfully urge the Regents of the University of California to reconsider their recent actions concerning faculty dismissal and to abide by established principles in basing judgments on faculty dismissal solely on demonstrated academic and professional performance, incorporating appropriate procedures for evaluation of performance by professional judgments of the faculty.”
A motion to send the resolution to the chairman of the Board of Regents of the University of California was not acted upon due to the absence of a quorum of Senate members near the end of the meeting.
In other action, a report on departing faculty members was presented by the Faculty Interests and Responsibilities Committee. The report contained the reasons given by 31 of the 67 faculty members who left last semester.
MINNES PUSHES CHANGES
Constitutional review set
By ANDY MILLER Managing editor
Ten recommendations for revision of the ASSC Constitution have been forwarded by Fred Minnes, ASSC president, to an 11-member Constitutional Revision Committee.
The committee, which was appointed by Dr. Topping on Minnes’ nominations, will examine the effectiveness of the ASSC Constitution and propose needed changes.
More than likely, a slightly altered document will be submitted to the student body in a special election before March 1, so that any possible changes will be in effect for the spring student body general election.
In his recommendations, Minnes asked that the position of senior class president be abolished, that a single vice-president replace the existing two vice-presidents, and that the Executive Council be given broader powers.
He also suggested several procedural changes which would complement his recommendations, or clarify portions of the document.
The current ASSC Constitution was ratified in a special election on March 30, 1966. Article XII of the Constitution contains a provision for a mandatory constitutional review.
The committee is headed by Donna Dediemar, Associated Women Students president. Other members are Mrs. Frederick Flam, sophomore; Loyd Kirk, graduate representative; Jay Magnuson, graduate representative; Andy Miller, managing editor of the Daily Trojan; Paul Moore, director of student activities; Dr. Harold Spear, associate professor of management; Dr. Richard Hesse, assistant professor of quantitative business analysis; Dan Smith, CACC executive director; and Norm Reed, administrative assistant to the vice-president of programs.
Mark Savit, vice-president of academic affairs; Sandra Sorenson, vice-president of programs; President Topping and Minnes serve as ex-officio members.
Early next semester, the committee will hold a series of open hearings where students will be
allowed to comment on the constitution.
In the meantime, the committee will study the document, and consider Minnes’ recommendations.
“I believe we now have a suitable constitutional framework from which student government can effectively operate,” Minnes said in his memorandum to the committee.
“However, certain areas seem to be in need of clarification, elaboration or alteration to increase administrative efficiency.
“Bear in mind that these recommendations may not be as specific as they should be when put in final constitutional form and that they should not in any way limit the scope of your investigation.”
Minnes’ recommendations are:
1—Definition of membership in the Associated Students should be consistent with the definitions of who is to pay the $4.50 programming fee and who is eligible to vote.
• 2—Abolish the senior class (Continued on page 3)